After 43 years of baby killing underRoe v. Wade, including 375,000 killed in South Carolina, pro-lifers in SC have a unique window of opportunity to give legal personhood status to the unborn. Here’s how you can participate!

What:Come to Columbia and talk to your state Senator and Representative to let them know that you support the Personhood Amendment Bill (H4093 in the House, S719 in the Senate). These bills must be passed so that we can vote in November to amend our South Carolina Constitution to protect life beginning at conception.

When:Wednesday, March 16, which happens to be the day that filing opens for all candidates for the June primary. We need to get our legislators on record as to whether they support personhood before the filing period ends on March 30th.

Why:We have made great progress on these bills already. However, without a lot of visible, vocal supportfrom the public, these bills will not get passed, and in fact, will not even get a vote. We must apply pressure NOW in order to get a vote by June.

Where:We will go to their offices in the House office building (Blatt) and the Senate office building (Gressette) first, and then rally in the Capitol building lobby at 1:30 as the Senate goes into session.

Who:You, your family, your friends, your church members. Coordinate with some people in your area to make a GROUP appointment to speak for 10-15 minutes with your Senator and/or Representative sometime between 9-1:30 on March 16th.Making an appointment now is the key to seeing them.

“Pro-Personhood is Pro-Life”Mass Public Pro-Personhood / Pro-Life Lobbying Day set for March 16 ( Wed. )Please plan to comeMarch 16to SC State House and Office Buildings in Columbia:1) Meet with and lobby your SC State Senator [ Call, make appt., bring a group ]2) Meet with and lobby your SC State Representative [ Call, make appt., bring a group ]3) Move to SC State House 1st and 2nd Floor Lobbies, and then to 3rd Floor Public Viewing Gallery of Senate Chamber for Floor Vote***

*** One way or another, the Vote by Senators to advance or block S.719, the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment on March 16, is the Record Vote of where each SC Senator stands on legal Personhood for the preborn ( and therefore protection of their God-given, unalienable right to life under Article I, Section 3, of the South Carolina Constitution )._____________________________
_____________________________SC Personhood Amendment Status Summary:

1. SC Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) is refusing to assign S.719 to a Judiciary Subcommittee where it could receive a public hearing. S.719 was introduced in the SC Senate on April 28, 2015, ten months ago. Yet despite the fact that Senator Larry Martin has been repeatedly asked to assign S.719 to a favorable subcommittee, he refuses to assign it to any Judiciary Subcommittee whatsoever, unless S.719 first passes out of the SC House.
[ Note: SC House Judiciary Chairman Greg Delleney ( R-Chester and York ) has repeatedly said, publicly and privately, that IF personhood legislation is passed by the SC Senate, he will get it passed in the SC House ( A SC Personhood bill was passed one time by the SC House on April 14, 2005 ( 91 – Y, 10 – N ), albeit with a fatal flaw “exception” amendment ) ].

SC Senator Larry Martin is what is known as a “judicial supremacist”, erroneously believing that OPINIONS of the US Supreme Court are the supreme Law of the Land. They are NOT. According to a plain reading of the WRITTEN TEXT of the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution [ www.constitutionus.com ], US Supreme Court OPINIONS are NOT the supreme Law of the Land. [ Note: The “Supremacy Clause” is actually all of Clause 2 of Article VI. ]

The very first sentence of Article I., Section 1. of the United States Constitution states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

If ALL legislative Powers granted by the US Constitution are vested in the US Congress, then that leaves ZERO legislative Powers granted by the US Constitution vested in the US Supreme Court. It is NOT within the constitutional authority of the US Supreme Court to legislate, to make law. The Oath of Office of officeholders is to uphold the WRITTEN TEXT of the United States Constitution, NOT the OPINIONS of five members of the US Supreme Court !

These concepts have been repeatedly upheld by United States Presidents ( Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln ), and constitutional scholars, authors, and attorneys:

On March 4, 1861, in his First Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln said:“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

[ Note: Lincoln was referring to the US Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case ( 1857 ) OPINION, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, which not only denied the slave Dred Scott freedom and citizenship, but also reached back 37 years to arrogate to itself the authority to declare the 1820 Missouri Compromise passed by the United States Congress, to be unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 ” regulated slavery in the country’s western territories by prohibiting the practice in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30 north, except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri .” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise ]. Despite the ruling of the US Supreme Court declaring the 1820 Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional, and declaring the US Congress could not ban Slavery in the western territories, the United States Congress and President Abraham Lincoln did just that. On June 19, 1862, the United States Congress ” ended slavery in the western territories.” The text of this “law enacting emancipation in the Federal Territories” is posted here.

2. This year 2016 is an election year for all 46 SC Senate seats and all 124 SC House of Representatives seats. The SC Election Commission 2016 Election Calendar lists the beginning of the filing period for all candidates seeking a political party nomination for the office of SC State Senate and SC State House of Representatives ( and other federal and local offices ) to be March 16, 2016. This filing period closes at 12 noon on March 30, 2016.

3. The SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment is filed in the SC House ( H.4093 ) and the SC Senate ( S.719 ).

(1) In the SC House of Representatives, H.4093 has 53 co-sponsors, plus two more Representatives who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 55 members of the SC House of Representatives who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Representatives are needed ( 2/3 of 124 ) to pass H.4093 to place the SC Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2) Two-thirds of 124 rounds up to 83 Representatives. Presently 55 have indicated their support, leaving 28 more who are needed out of the remaining 69 Representatives in the SC House. [ The SC House is currently made up of a total of 78 Republicans and 46 Democrats. ] b. SC Senate – S.719

(1) In the SC Senate, S.719 has 11 co-sponsors, plus three more Senators who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 14 members of the SC Senate who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Senators are needed ( 2/3 of 45 presently, with one seat vacant; normally 2/3 of 46 ) to pass the S.719 to place the Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2) Two-thirds of 45 is 30 Senators [ 2/3 of 46 rounds up to 31 Senators. ] Presently 14 have indicated their support, leaving at least 16 currently [ possibly 17 later ] more who are needed out of the present remaining 31 Senators [ possibly 32 remaining Senators later if the vacant seat is filled ] in the SC Senate. [ The SC Senate is currently made up of a total of 27 Republicans and 18 Democrats, with one seat vacant. ]
4. List of all THIRTEEN ( 13 ) REPUBLICAN SC SENATORS who have neither yet co-sponsored S.719, nor have they signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge in support of S.719. The Senator’s District Number, and the Counties which are included in that Senate District, are listed after each Senator’s name. ( Most Counties are divided between Senate Districts. )

Even if an individual Senator is personally opposed to SC Personhood Legislation
( e.g., Senator Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) and Senator George “Chip” Campsen, III
( R – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton ), remind them, in the concluding words of
the February 4, 2016 letter sent to them:LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!” Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )”[ Excerpt ]“Over the past 17 years of introducing Personhood BILLS in the SC Legislature ( 1998-2015 ), the General assembly has failed to establish justice for pre-birth human beings by actually passing any of these bills in both chambers. S.719 introduced on April 28, 2015 is the first time a proposed Personhood Constitutional AMENDMENT has been introduced. It is time to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!”

Later in this same new video Ted Cruz did pledge, as President of the United States, “That I will sign any legislation put on my desk to defend the least of these including legislation that defends the rights of all persons without exceptionother than [ i.e., EXCEPT ] the life of the mother, from conceptionto natural death.”

[ See ‘Additional Links’ below for several postings dealing with the so-called “life of the mother” issue from a medical standpoint. ]

So while Ted Cruz says in his new video, “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question, does he also support these present 2015-2016 SC Bills/Resolutions ( i.e., S.719, H .4093 ) to actually amend the South Carolina State Constitution ( i.e., not just the 2014 Advisory Question ) ?

If he does, then he would be supporting something that contradicts with what he says later in this same video, as addressed above, about supporting an exception for the life of the mother; because S.719, H .4093 do not have an exception for the life of the mother. If they did, they would cease to be true “personhood” bills, and they would become meaningless, as any exception to personhood nullifies, destroys, the personhood legal concept.

Add:

“Pro-Life is Pro-Personhood” !Christians for Personhood:

The standard for identifying whether or not a candidate is “Pro-Life” is whether or not the candidate commits to support the
legal Personhood of pre-birth human beings IN LAW, at fertilization (conception), and that without “exceptions”, because
God’s Word says, “Thou shalt not kill ( murder ).” Exodus 20:13, KJV.

Being “Pro-Life” is agreeing with God regarding the Sanctity of Human Life which He created.

Add under: Additional links:

8) Pro-Life Without Exceptionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwazODlTOBk
Video – 58:33
Is abortion helpful in cases of rape or incest? What about fetal deformity? What about threats to the life or health of the mother? Hear the stories of those who have actually been involved in these difficult circumstances.

Christiansfor Personhood ( CP )
Columbia, South Carolina
February 19, 2016 / Corrected/Revised February 20, 2016Ted Cruz on Personhood? – Views of American Right to Life, Christians for Personhood, PersonhoodUSA

Ted Cruz has posted a new video where he says “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question which asked voters to vote “Yes” or “No” on language adding a personhood amendment to the South Carolina Constitution. Statewide, this Advisory Question passed by over 78%, with over 240,000 Republican Primary voters saying “Yes”.However, neither Ted Cruz in his new video, nor PersonhoodUSA in their Feb. 17, 2016 MEDIA ADVISORY below, say anything about the ACTUAL SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( S.719, H .4093 ) which has nearly the identical, verbatim language of the 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question; which bills are being currently promoted by Christians for Personhood, Personhood South Carolina, and Voice of the Unborn, RIGHT NOW, in February 2016 !

Later in this same new video Ted Cruz did pledge, as President of the United States, “That I will sign any legislation put on my desk to defend the least of these including legislation that defends the rights of all persons without exceptionother than [ i.e., EXCEPT ] the life of the mother, from conceptionto natural death.” [ emphasis, comment added ]

[ See ‘Additional Links:’ below for several postings dealing with the so-called “life of the mother” issue from a medical standpoint. ]

So while Ted Cruz says in his new video, “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question, does he also support these present 2015-2016 SC Bills/Resolutions ( i.e., S.719, H .4093 ) to actually amend the South Carolina State Constitution ( i.e., not just the 2014 Advisory Question ) ?

If he does, then he would be supporting something that contradicts with what he says later in this same video, as addressed above, about his support for an exception for the life of the mother; because S.719, H .4093 do not have an exception for the life of the mother. If they did, they would cease to be true “personhood” bills, and they would become meaningless, as any exception to personhood nullifies, destroys, the personhood legal concept.

In fact, in a YouTube video posted January 8, 2016 recording Ted Cruz while campaigning in Iowa, Ted Cruz specifically said, “I have not supported personhood legislation because I think, and the pro-life community is divided on this, but I think personhood legislation can be counterproductive because it focuses on issues that are unrelated to protecting unborn children [ sic ], …” [ At 10:45 into YouTube video ]

In over three years as a United States Senator, Ted Cruz has never sponsored, nor co-sponsored any Personhood Bills in the United States Senate. [ Presently, there are two principled Personhood Bills in the US House: HR 426 and HR 2761 – each bill can be viewed at www.Congress.gov. HR 2761 has the added feature of invoking the authority and power of the United States Congress to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. ]American Right to Life has posted a detailed report and analysis of the contradictory positions taken by Ted Cruz on “abortion”
at: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ted-cruz-abortion

Ted CruzPresidential Candidate
Tier 2 – Personhood Whenever

As a Republican primary candidate, Ted Cruz has taken contradictory positions on abortion and it is sobering to realize that his effort to get votes from the Republican base could explain this behavior.

The standard for identifying whether or not a candidate is “Pro-Life” is whether or not the candidate commits to support the legal Personhood of pre-birth human beings IN LAW, at fertilization (conception), and that without “exceptions”, because God’s Word says, “Thou shalt not kill ( murder ).” Exodus 20:13, KJV.

Being “Pro-Life” is agreeing with God regarding the Sanctity of Human Life which He created.____________________________
____________________________Additional links:

8) Pro-Life Without Exceptionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwazODlTOBk
Video – 58:33
Is abortion helpful in cases of rape or incest? What about fetal deformity? What about threats to the life or health of the mother?Hear the stories of those who have actually been involved in these difficult circumstances.

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 17, 2016 / Christian Newswire/ — A new video from Senator Ted Cruz affirms South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, in which 79% of Republicans called for a Personhood amendment to the state constitution.

Cruz states that he would support legislation like South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, which he mentioned specifically. In a crowded Republican race, it’s noteworthy that Personhood USA’s resolution passed with a higher percentage than any presidential GOP candidate has ever won with in South Carolina.

The question read: “Should Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution be amended to include the following language? The privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. These rights shall extend to both born and pre-born persons beginning at conception.”

Personhood USA’s resolution in South Carolina passed by a landslide majority, gathering nearly a quarter of a million affirmative votes, and was the largest show of support by percentage in any public vote held on personhood.

“Candidates in the presidential race cannot forget that 79% of the base in South Carolina believes that preborn children deserve full legal protection,” stated Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA Communications Director. “Truly pro-life candidates must not lose sight of the fact that the majority of South Carolina voters in the primary have already voted in support of full personhood rights for unborn children.”

Ted Cruz has posted a new video where he says “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question which asked voters to vote “Yes” or “No” on language adding a personhood amendment to the South Carolina Constitution. Statewide, this Advisory Question passed by over 78%, with over 240,000 Republican Primary voters saying “Yes”.However, neither Ted Cruz in his new video, nor PersonhoodUSA in their Feb. 17, 2016 MEDIA ADVISORY below, say anything about the ACTUAL SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( S.719, H.4093 ) which has nearly the identical, verbatim language of the 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question; which bills are being currently promoted by Christians for Personhood, Personhood South Carolina, and Voice of the Unborn, RIGHT NOW, in February 2016 !

In fact, in a YouTube video posted January 8, 2016 recording Ted Cruz while campaigning in Iowa, Ted Cruz specifically said, “I have not supported personhood legislation because I think, and the pro-life community is divided on this, but I think personhood legislation can be counterproductive because it focuses on issues that are unrelated to protecting unborn children [ sic ], …” [ At 10:45 into YouTube video ]In over three years as a United States Senator, Ted Cruz has never sponsored, nor co-sponsored any Personhood Bills in the United States Senate. [ Presently, there are two principled Personhood Bills in the US House: HR 426 and HR 2761 – each bill can be viewed at www.Congress.gov. HR 2761 has the added feature of invoking the authority and power of the United States Congress to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. ]American Right to Life has posted a detailed report and analysis of the contradictory positions taken by Ted Cruz on “abortion” at: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ted-cruz-abortion

Ted CruzPresidential Candidate
Tier 2 – Personhood Whenever

As a Republican primary candidate, Ted Cruz has taken contradictory positions on abortion and it is sobering to realize that his effort to get votes from the Republican base could explain this behavior.

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 17, 2016 / Christian Newswire/ — A new video from Senator Ted Cruz affirms South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, in which 79% of Republicans called for a Personhood amendment to the state constitution.

Cruz states that he would support legislation like South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, which he mentioned specifically. In a crowded
Republican race, it’s noteworthy that Personhood USA’s resolution passed with a higher percentage than any presidential GOP candidate
has ever won with in South Carolina.

The question read: “Should Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution be amended to include the following language? The privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. These rights shall extend to both born and pre-born persons beginning at conception.”

Personhood USA’s resolution in South Carolina passed by a landslide majority, gathering nearly a quarter of a million affirmative votes, and was the largest show of support by percentage in any public vote held on personhood.

“Candidates in the presidential race cannot forget that 79% of the base in South Carolina believes that preborn children deserve full legal protection,” stated Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA Communications Director. “Truly pro-life candidates must not lose sight of the fact that the majority of South Carolina voters in the primary have already voted in support of full personhood rights for unborn children.”

1. SC Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) has still failed to assign S.719 to a Judiciary Subcommittee.S.719 was introduced in the SC Senate on April 28, 2015. Senator Larry Martin has been repeatedly asked to assign S.719 to a favorable subcommittee.

2. This year 2016 is an election year for all 46 SC Senate seats. The SC Election Commission 2016 Election Calendarlists the beginning of the filing period for all candidates seeking a political party nomination for the office of SC State Senate and SC State House of Representatives ( and other federal and local offices ) to be March 16, 2016. This filing period closes at 12 noon on March 30, 2016.

3. The SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment is filed in the SC House ( H.4093 ) and the SC Senate ( S.719 ).

(1) In the SC House of Representatives, H.4093 has 50 co-sponsors, plus two more Representatives who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 52 members of the SC House of Representatives who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Representatives are needed ( 2/3 of 124 ) to pass H.4093 to place the SC Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2) Two-thirds of 124 rounds up to 83 Representatives. Presently 52 have indicated their support, leaving 31 more who are needed out of the remaining 72 Representatives in the SC House. [ The SC House is currently made up of a total of 78 Republicans and 46 Democrats. ]

(1) In the SC Senate, S.719 has 10 co-sponsors, plus three more Senators who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 13 members of the SC Senate who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Senators are needed ( 2/3 of 45 presently, with one seat vacant; normally 2/3 of 46 ) to pass the S.719 to place the Personhood Amendment on the General ElectionBallot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2) Two-thirds of 45 is 30 Senators [ 2/3 of 46 rounds up to 31 Senators. ] Presently 13 have indicated their support, leaving at least 17 currently [ possibly 18 later ] more who are needed out of the present remaining 32 Senators [ possibly 33 remaining Senators later if the vacant seat is filled ] in the SC Senate. [ The SC Senate is currently made up of a total of 27 Republicans and 18 Democrats, with one seat vacant. ]

4. List of all FOURTEEN ( 14 ) REPUBLICAN SC SENATORS who have neither yet co-sponsored S.719, nor have they signed theSC Pastors Alliance Pledge in support of S.719. The Senator’s District Number, and the Counties which are included in that Senate District, are listed after each Senator’s name. ( Most Counties are divided between Senate Districts. )

Even if an individual Senator is personally opposed to SC Personhood Legislation
( e.g., Senator Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) and Senator George “Chip” Campsen, III ( R – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton ), remind them, in the concluding words of the February 4, 2016 letter sent to them:LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!” Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )”[ Excerpt ]“Over the past 17 years of introducing Personhood BILLS in the SC Legislature ( 1998-2015 ), the General Assembly has failed to establish justice for pre-birth human beings by actually passing any of these bills in both chambers. S.719 introduced on April 28, 2015 is the first time a proposed Personhood Constitutional AMENDMENT has been introduced. It is time to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!”